CC BY
25xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
2022 yil 30 noyabr | scientists.uz
THE ANALYSIS OF HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS Zaripova Donoxon Kamiljanovna
Student of Urgench State University, Foreign philology faculty Abdisheribov Sulaymon Javlonbek o'g'li
Teacher at Urgench State University, Roman-German philology department Mukarrama Bekzodovna Jumayeva
Student of Samarkand state institute of foreign languages https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7369006
Abstract. One of the effective ways to help the students to attain these thinking skills is teachers' questions. The teachers' questions, to some extent, can stimulate the students' thinking process. The purpose of this study was to analyze HOTs in the test questions constructed by the English teachers. This study used a qualitative content analysis design. The data resources of this study were the test questions designed by two different junior high school teachers. The data were collected from the question items in the teacher-made tests and were analyzed following revised Bloom's taxonomy framework. The results of this study show that the test questions made by the teachers require more HOTs-type questions because the tests are mainly LOTs-type questions. The majority of the test questions cover understanding questions (50%), followed by remembering (42.5%), analyzing (3.75%), evaluating (2.5%), and creating (1.25%). Unfortunately, no test item is classified as applying question. Based on the results, it shows that the test questions made by the teacher lack HOTs-type questions.
Key words: bloom's taxonomy framework, Higher Order Thinking skills (HOTs), teacher-made test questions.
Introduction. HOTs are the three highest thinking levels of cognitive skills involving analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Fitz Patrick & Schulz, 2015). These thinking skills become more extensive in the education field because it intends to develop the quality of teaching and learning (Driana & Ernawati, 2019). Besides, it aims to support the students to be more critical, creative, and productive in responding to a problem (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2017). So, the students are not only familiar with low-level tasks but also higher level problems. Therefore, to achieve that objective, the teacher should emphasize these skills in their teaching and learning. Some researchers assert that one of the alternative ways to support the students in attaining those levels of thinking is through the teacher's questions (Martinez, 1999; Lee, 2015). The teachers' questions, to some extent, can stimulate the students' thinking process (Crowe, 2010). Some education practitioners agreed that incorporating students with HOT questions can develop their thinking process (Tyas, Nurkamto, & Marmanto, 2020; Qasrawi & Beni Abdelrahman, 2020). They can be more creative and productive in solving the problems as they need to think more than a simple memory to acquire the answer. Question items that require the students to respond using Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTs), such as remembering and recalling memorized information, do not represent their comprehensive understanding of the content (Berg, 2004). However, it does not mean that those types of questions should be dodged by the students. The simple questions are indispensable since they are a prerequisite for acquiring other levels of thinking (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Nonetheless, to help the students enhance their thinking process, the teacher's questions should emphasize HOTs.
Defining HOTs and LOTs
xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
2022 yil 30 noyabr | scientists.uz
Lower order thinking skills (LOTS) and higher order thinking skills (HOTS) are not skills which are exclusive to CLIL. In most ELT teaching as well as in course books, teachers and learners move from concrete thinking: the here and now; the real and specific, towards abstract thinking: the complex and analytical; the creative and evaluative. Teachers need to help learners develop both LOTS and HOTS. Questions which encourage LOTS are those with interrogatives such as when, where, which, how many and who, while interrogatives which develop HOTS include why, how and more probing questions such as, what evidence is there? In CLIL, however, learners are often challenged with analytical, creative and evaluative concepts as soon as they start learning subjects across the curriculum. Many traditional ELT materials don't encourage learners to develop higher order thinking for two or sometimes three years.
It all comes from Bloom's Taxonomy. It's created by Dr Benjamin Bloom. There are three modules: cognitive, affective, psychomotor. The cognitive one is applied to the education and learning objectives and activities. This module includes six levels that you can use to structure your lesson or the whole syllabus from the easiest to the most difficult.
Six levels are:
• Knowledge — an ability to remember and recognize facts, information, skills.
• Comprehension — an ability to understand, describe, compare facts, information,
skills.
• Application — an ability to use the acquired information, knowledge, facts.
• Analysis — an ability to examine the new information.
• Evaluation — an ability to assess the information, ideas.
• Creation — an ability to generate, design new ideas, concepts.
Examples of LOTS and HOTS in primary and secondary CLIL contexts
In the first year of primary science, learners can be asked a series of lower order questions to check comprehension: Where do plants grow? Which parts grow above the ground? Where are the roots? In addition to these questions, learners are encouraged to answer, 'What will happen if they don't have any light?' (prediction before an experiment) 'Why was this test fair?' (reasoning after an experiment) These demand answers which show a deeper understanding of the characteristics of living things, an important scientific concept.
In secondary CLIL, learners are asked questions which, like those in primary contexts, tend to start with LOTS and then rapidly progress to those demanding HOTS. Examples from history include: What do these Egyptian hieroglyphs mean? Which symbol is used for a scribe? (LOTS) Does source 'A' tell us about the clothes scribes wore? Give a reason for your answer (LOTS and HOTS) Why was writing important to the development of Egypt? Give as many reasons as you can. (HOTS)
Clearly in order to develop learners' thinking skills, CLIL teachers need to be confident in their use of questioning, while learners need the language to be able to respond to higher order questions. This is a challenge for everyone.
Applying HOTs and LOTs into the classroom
Let's imagine you are going to teach Present Simple. How do we apply these skills to teaching English?
• Remembering: students know the rule, they can identify this tense in the sentences. For example, they read a text and highlight the grammatical structure.
• Understanding: students can describe when they use Present Simple.
xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
2022 yil 30 noyabr | scientists.uz
Application: students can give examples of Present Simple usage, do a gap-filling exercise or practise the tense in a controlled setting.
Analyzing: students can examine the form and the uses of the tense, clarify why we use Present Simple in certain contexts, situations, describe the difference between tenses.
Evaluating: students can change sentences to make them true to themselves; or make sentences in Present Simple using given patterns, examples.
Creating: students can describe their daily routines or talk about their day. It is obvious that it's better to teach with HOTs as your students are more involved in a lesson. When students use HOTs, they do something with the new knowledge, facts: apply it, compare, contrast. HOT involves metacognition: when you think about your thinking. Moreover, we can apply this taxonomy not only to grammar or vocabulary lessons but, for example, to skills or CLIL lessons too. For example, you teach History through English (e.g., compare old and new things). This is an example of the tasks' sequence: Remembering: pre-teach "old", "new" and other vocabulary needed for the lesson. Understanding: students say what old and new is. Application: students choose what things are new and old. Analyzing: students compare old and new things. Evaluating: students discuss which things are better and why.
Creating: students design their own old and new things or find old and new things at home and describe them. Sometimes, teachers confuse the skills and cannot identify skills their tasks refer to or cannot design activities for each skill. I think this taxonomy wheel is quite useful when you plan your lessons and think of aims.
Understanding is the ability to understand knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This thinking level tends to focus on the questions that require the students to explain and exemplify the ideas of the information (Liu, 2009). The sub-categories of this cognitive process are interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The question that needs the students to represent one form of representation to another type (e.g., picture to word or word to picture) is defined as interpreting. Then when the students are required to find some specific example of a particular topic is categorized as exemplifying. Next, classifying questions direct the students to subsume that something applies to a group. A question pointing the students to abstract a general theme of a particular topic is grouped as summarizing subcategory. However, when the question leads the students to conclude from the presented information is determined as inferring. Then, comparing sub-category enquires the students to match two ideas or objects. The last subcategory, explaining, demands the students to construct a general concept or idea. The examples of understanding questions are: what is the main idea of the passage...? Could you explain how to use...? What do you think.?
Applying is the capability to practice the knowledge in different ways (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The questions of this level allow the students to demonstrate their understanding of the knowledge in the given situation (Virranmaki, Valta-Hulkkonen, & Pellikka, 2020). The sub-categories of this cognition are executing and implementing (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The questions of executing category require the students to apply the procedure that has been learned to the new given problem that is familiar with the current lesson. Meanwhile, implementing questions challenge the student to use the method to the unacquainted
xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
2022 yil 30 noyabr | scientists.uz
task. The Examples of applying questions are: can you develop a set of instructions...? Can you group by characteristics such as.?
REFERENCE
1. Anderson, C., McDougald, J., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. Mclaughlin, G. Fanning & N. D. Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137-152). Faversham: IATEFL.
2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3. Bakhrom, K., & Mukarrama, J. (2022). THEORETICAL BASICS FOR ENGLISH TEACHING. TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI, 157-158.
4. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom.
ASCD.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (p. 676). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Crowe, M., & Stanford, P. (2010). Questioning for quality. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(4), 36-44.
7. G. Djumambetova, B. Khabibullaeva, & M. Jumayeva (2022). DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES OF PROVERBS IN ENGLISH AND KARAKALPAK LANGUAGES. Science and innovation, 1 (B5), 106-107. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7005635Jumaeva Mukarrama, Azimov Jasurbek, & Saidov Kamoliddin. (2022). TEACHING LISTENING SKILLS IN ENGLISH. Academicia Globe: Inderscience Research, 3(06), 252-255. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HB7Y9
8. Jumayeva, M. (2022). ISLOM MA'RIFATINING TA'LIM-TARBIYA SIVILIZATSIYASIGA TA'SIRI. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and Culture, 2(8), 41-44. извлечено от https://in-academy.uz/index.php/ejsspc/article/view/3419
9. Jumayeva, Mukarrama Bekzodovna (2022). OLIY TA'LIMDA INNOVATSION USUL VA VOSITALAR. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 2 ( Special Issue 20), 214-226. doi: 10.24412/2181-1784-2022-20-214-226
10. Lee, H. A. (2015). Thinking levels of questions in Christian reading textbooks. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 24(2), 89-100.
11. Liu, X. (2009). Essentials of science classroom assessment. Sage Publications.
12. M. Jumayeva (2022). CHARACTERISTICS OF VERBS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES. Science and innovation, 1 (B7), 711-714. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7264531
13. M. Jumayeva (2022). EFFECTIVE CREATIVE WAY OF ERKIN VAHIDOV. TRANSLATOR, POET, HERO OF UZBEKISTAN.. Science and innovation, 1 (B5), 404-409. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7059373
14. M. Jumayeva (2022). UYG'ONISH DAVRI ALLOMALARINING PEDAGOGIKA VA TA'LIMTARBIYAGA O'ZGACHA YONDASHUV ASOSIDAGI QARASHLARI TAHLILI. Science and innovation, 1 (B5), 26-29. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6990805
15. M. Jumayeva, & M. Jumayeva (2022). THE IMPORTANCE OF FEATURE FILMS IN INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING. Science and innovation, 1 (B7), 581-583. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7257719
xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
2022 yil 30 noyabr | scientists.uz
16. M. Jumayeva, & M. Mahmudova (2022). INGLIZ TILIDA TALAFFUZNI SHAKLLANTIRISH TAMOYILLARI. Science and innovation, 1 (B5), 263-265. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7027100
17. Maxmudjonov Ibroximjon, & Jumayeva Mukarrama. (2022). HOZIRGI KUN YOSHLARINI IJTIMOIY MUNOSABATLARGA KIRISHISHIDA CHET TILLARINI O'RGATILISHI VA UNING AHAMIYATI. Involta Scientific Journal, 1(5), 178-182. Retrieved from https://involta.uz/index.php/iv/article/view/119
18. Mukarrama Bekzodovna Jumayeva (2021). INTERACTIVE METHODS USED IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS. Scientific progress, 2 (4), 881-885.
19. Roohani, A., Taheri, F., & Poorzangeneh, M. (2013). Evaluating Four Corners textbooks in terms of cognitive processes using Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 51-67.
20. Turdieva Umidaxon, & Jumaeva Mukarrama. (2022). SIGNIFICANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AS A FACTOR IN DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM SPHERE. Academic Research Journal, 1(3), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6880388
21. Tyas, M. A., Nurkamto, J., & Marmanto, S. (2020). Cultivating students' higher-order thinking skills in EFL classes: The role of the teacher and the textbook. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(1), 267-276.
22. Umidjon, G., & Mukarrama, J. (2022). USED IN LESSON PROCESSES EFFICIENCY OF INTERACTIVE METHODS. TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI, 161-162.
23. Wisrance, M. W., & Semiun, T. T. (2020). LOTs and HOTs of teacher-made test in junior high school level in Kefamenanu. JEE (Journal of English Education), 6(2), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.30606/jee.v6i2.574
